It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's wrong with the God of the gaps that Darwinist like to say when losing a debate

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

www.google.com...


bed bugs remain bed bugs, dogs remain dogs, slugs remain slugs, mice remain mice, etc, etc, etc. This is not evolution. They are describing adaptations. when Motta et al, among others, showed that antibiotic resistance is quickly reversible over subsequent generations, it showed that they are not evolving, they are adapting with pre-set genetic mechanisms known as 'epigenetics'.

Why do you guys want to believe evolution so bad? It's implications are horrendous for the human condition. There is much to be explored, and you are not a mutant accident. Wake up.
edit on 22-6-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Because sane people recognize that real science has evidence. You don't.

Please cite one textbook that says a dog turned into a cat or a monkey turned into a man. While you're at it, why don't you tell the truth about what evolutionary science really says: it says that life on this planet has a COMMON ANCESTOR.

And once again, upload 3 peer reviewed research papers that support your position - any position for that matter - don't care what it is - just your position on any one of the topics that have been discussed. You can't do it. You won't do it.

You're the same fraud you've always been.



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

www.google.com...


bed bugs remain bed bugs, dogs remain dogs, slugs remain slugs, mice remain mice, etc, etc, etc. This is not evolution. They are describing adaptations. when Motta et al, among others, showed that antibiotic resistance is quickly reversible over subsequent generations, it showed that they are not evolving, they are adapting with pre-set genetic mechanisms known as 'epigenetics'.

Why do you guys want to believe evolution so bad? It's implications are horrendous for the human condition. There is much to be explored, and you are not a mutant accident. Wake up.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

Saying that our genome is too sophisticated to be random is not an explanation of how and who/what. I think we all would like to see an in depth walkthrough on the mechanics of your theory and exactly what kind of agency is behind all this.
edit on 22-6-2020 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

And if you don't know how self assembly works, look it up. That topic has been posted a dozen times. You just never bother to read it.
You can start with self assembly of organic molecules.



You must admit you were wrong here. You have yet to be able to find a source that proves DNA monomers can polymerize via self-assembly. I wouldn't be so hard on you, but you were being so condescending you have to be put in your place. DNA monomer self-assembly does not happen, which makes an insurmountable hurdle for evolutionary theory.

If you can't admit you were wrong, then it is meaningless to debate with you because you are shown to be acting solely out of biased dogmatism, void of reason.
edit on 22-6-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



And once again, upload 3 peer reviewed research papers that support your position - any position for that matter - don't care what it is - just your position on any one of the topics that have been discussed. You can't do it. You won't do it.



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton



And once again, upload 3 peer reviewed research papers that support your position - any position for that matter - don't care what it is - just your position on any one of the topics that have been discussed. You can't do it. You won't do it.


That's equivalent to me telling you to find me 3 examples in the Bible that prove evolution. The dogmatism that is prevalent in academia is totalitarian, totally denying any research article that is outspoken against evolution. Regardless, I can still find plenty of empirical examples that prove that evolutionary mechanisms are not plausible. Going back to epigenetic inheritance, this proves that heritable alterations are actually just differentiations in genomic expression that get passed on. This 'epigenetic inheritance' shows that what was once thought to be evolution, i.e. antibiotic resistance, is actually a reversible alteration in genomic expression. It is key that this is reversible, because this defies one of the core evolution notions that these alterations take immense amounts of time. The fact the reversibility is so quick is due to the fact it is resulting from reversible epigenetic mechanisms. Again, this is the opposite of evolution.

Source 1: An overview of epigenetic inheritance regarding the epigenetic alteration of a detox pump in a microbe in order to attenuate high antibiotic exposure

This same phenomenon was exhibited in many other experiments:

tetracycline efflux and epigenetic modification - they found that within 100 generations the bacteria had reverted back to non-resistance. If these were hardwired evolutionary changes, there would be no easy reversion back to the baseline population. This shows that antibiotic resistance is not proof of evolutionary theory, instead it shows the opposite. Adaptations are an intricate aspect of our epigenome which changes due to various biological necessities, but can never go outside its particular genetically coded bounds.

this study is the third source, although I could find many more, that further insists that efflux pumps are changed epigenetically to induce antibiotic resistance. Since these efflux pumps were always existent in the genome, there is no new mutation, but simply an increase in genetic expression of efflux pumps.


So now its your turn. Admit you were wrong regarding DNA polymer self-assembly from its component monomers or find a source that shows its possible



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Are you trying to say that efflux pumps and antibiotic resistance are proof of intelligent design?



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Throw in the towel!

I was going to jump in but Cooperton has pretty much decimated your arguments which are the same tired arguments that have been destroyed in other threads. You post, get destroyed, vanish and then reappear with the same nonsense.

Cooperton said this:

bed bugs remain bed bugs, dogs remain dogs, slugs remain slugs, mice remain mice, etc, etc, etc. This is not evolution. They are describing adaptations. when Motta et al, among others, showed that antibiotic resistance is quickly reversible over subsequent generations, it showed that they are not evolving, they are adapting with pre-set genetic mechanisms known as 'epigenetics'.

Why do you guys want to believe evolution so bad? It's implications are horrendous for the human condition. There is much to be explored, and you are not a mutant accident. Wake up.


This is important.

Materialism is lacking in every way to explain things. This is why more scientist are turning to Panpsychism or asking is the universe fundamentally conscious.

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

www.livescience.com...

Is the Universe Conscious? Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.

conscious

Dawkins said:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

In science and just in everyday life we make inferences. If I go outside of my house and it looked like it rained and everywhere I'm driving it looks like it rained, I can make an inference that it rained even though I haven't seen one raindrop.

Here you have Dawkins admitting that when looking at biological systems the correct inference to make is that they were designed.

That's the logical and most reasoned inference to make when looking at biological systems.

What this shows is, materialism is used to support atheism and evolution is like a sacrament.

They know that a natural interpretation of evolution goes against reason and logic but they say given enough time anything can happen.

This is just a ridiculous statement but they have to make it because a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. Anything can't happen over time. Like I showed with the pair of dice, if the rules say all you can roll is a 2-12 then you can roll the dice ad infinitum and all you're going to get is an infinite set of 2-12 dice rolls.

Evolution is the same. It's not designed so anything can happen. If it was we wouldn't be here.

Darwinst realize this so they talk about the appearence of design or it just behaves like it's intelligent but it's not or it just look like irredicible complexity but it's not.

So people have to turn a blind eye to reason and logic in order to blindly accept a natural interpretation of evolution. Even the world's biggest atheist admits it's logical to infer design when looking at biological systems.
edit on 22-6-2020 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Because sane people recognize that real science has evidence. You don't.

Please cite one textbook that says a dog turned into a cat or a monkey turned into a man. While you're at it, why don't you tell the truth about what evolutionary science really says: it says that life on this planet has a COMMON ANCESTOR.

And once again, upload 3 peer reviewed research papers that support your position - any position for that matter - don't care what it is - just your position on any one of the topics that have been discussed. You can't do it. You won't do it.

You're the same fraud you've always been.



Science is basically:
Hypothesis.
Theory (mathematical).
Proof,
Axiom
Experiments to prove the theory wrong
If all else fails we get some
Laws.

Evolution is a Theory based on good logic.
It is by no means considered a law/truth, from a scientific perspective.
I personally think Dawkins is wrong about it being random.
There is most certainly a substrate of what I would call 'spirit'.
There are ways to get proof, but that is a personal journey.



"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term "gaps" was initially used by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence


I think this is a simple minded perspective,
God is a spiritual concept, not a scientific one.

Trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is a fools game.
Orthodox view points put circles through squares

My belief is that evolution is 'proof' of God's existence.

edit on 0000006040564America/Chicago22 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: neoholographic

Assuming you're right, and it is an insurmountable gulf, the answer is, "I don't know and seem to lack the tools necessary to find out" NOT "God did it because I have no better explanation."


We never expect a person that doesn't believe in creation to think that way, only question the true scientific reality.....being more agnostic towards the science part of it, rather than being rabidly dogmatic on it based on some really twisted make it fit to my world view science.



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Here's the difference. I post peer-reviewed research papers. You two post nothing by your own opinions which are based on crap. And that's a fact.



Peer reviewed research is often an echo chamber of thought with tiny variations, the scientific echo chamber of the standard worldview has been wrong, can be wrong, and will be wrong.....at times.

Neo and coops keep blowing your peer reviewed articles out of the water with scientific common sense that busts out of the common echo chamber...the three of us are sorry you refuse to see it.
Often that happens with cognitive dissonance.



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: neoholographic

Assuming you're right, and it is an insurmountable gulf, the answer is, "I don't know and seem to lack the tools necessary to find out" NOT "God did it because I have no better explanation."


We never expect a person that doesn't believe in creation to think that way, only question the true scientific reality.....being more agnostic towards the science part of it, rather than being rabidly dogmatic on it based on some really twisted make it fit to my world view science.


Technically the question was about the god of the gaps expression. That's where this thread started, so it's not like people just got triggered out of nowhere. I'm also not sure where these facts are that were so incredibly useful in explaining the mechanics of creationism.



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: rom12345

Agree with most of that but

Many here would consider that evolution is a fact, is the truth is a law



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton



And once again, upload 3 peer reviewed research papers that support your position - any position for that matter - don't care what it is - just your position on any one of the topics that have been discussed. You can't do it. You won't do it.


Faith does t need peer reviews
What does is you claiming evolution is a science, you can’t do it, you won’t, you just troll.
Going to miss this
Just going to throw this up for fun

Why do you hate science Phants?



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: rom12345

Agree with most of that but

Many here would consider that evolution is a fact, is the truth is a law


Theory doesn't mean law. It means a network of recorded studies that support a conclusion. It also means that ideas we are able to test contribute more to the working models we know today.



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 08:49 PM
link   
If the material universe where to produce an organism that were able to properly grasp the nature of it.
What would this imply, from an a-temporal standpoint ?



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Many here on ats have told me evolution is a scientific fact, ad nauseam.
Anyway, whatever, it’s not here there, believe the world is flat, no consequences for me



posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Hey, you had me at insurmountable.



posted on Jun, 23 2020 @ 01:39 AM
link   
In all fairness, fans and adherents of evolutionary philosophies (evolutionists) who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory their “God-of-the-gaps.”

The Creator presented in the Bible is no “God-of-the-gaps.”

Ever heard of the phenomenon called psychological projection in the field of psychology? The behaviour is even more appropiately (broader, encompassing more than just one very specific type of behaviour) described at Isaiah 5:20:

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!


Applied to this specific situation when an evolutionist brings up the complaint about someone else using a “God-of-the-gaps”, when the other person didn't do so, it's like arguing that their good argument is bad, and their own bad argument is good. When they do it they usually come across as quite smug about it as well to me, as if they've just made a really clever argument (they did hear it after all from those who they admired a lot, or on TV, over and over, as if it was something clever, so that's how they perceive it, 'wise in their own eyes').

You have probably heard of the Italian painter and sculptor Michelangelo. Though you may never have seen the original of any of his masterpieces, you most likely agree with the art historian who called the Italian genius a “marvellous and incomparable artist.” Michelangelo’s talents cannot be denied. Who would try to separate appreciation for Michelangelo’s art from acknowledgment of him as an outstanding artist?

Now think of the mind-boggling molecular machinery of life that thrives around us on earth. Appropriately, The New York Times quoted one professor of biological sciences as stating: “The physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology.” He added: “Life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.” Is it intellectually honest to admire the design without acknowledging the designer?

The apostle Paul, a keen observer of things around him, spoke of those who “honoured and served the creature more than him who had created it.” (Romans 1:25, Darby) Affected by pervasive evolutionary ideas, some refuse or fail to recognize that design certainly points to a designer. But does the theory of evolution represent true science at its best? Note the conclusion that Christoph Schönborn, Catholic archbishop of Vienna, presented in The New York Times: “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

There are, however, those who feel that accepting the position that there is evidence of a Creator would “stifle research.” An article in the magazine New Scientist expressed such fears, asserting that “science as an open-ended pursuit would come to an end, halted by an impenetrable barrier labelled ‘the designer did it.’” Is that fear well-founded? Not at all. In fact, the opposite is true. Why?

To accept blind chance and subsequent evolution as the cause of our universe and life on earth would actually be to abandon any attempt to get a meaningful explanation. On the other hand, accepting that an intelligent Creator is behind what we see around us can lead us to investigate the nature and application of his intelligence manifested in the physical universe. Consider this: Knowing that Leonardo da Vinci painted the “Mona Lisa” has not stopped art historians from investigating his technique and the materials he used. Similarly, accepting that there is a Designer should not discourage us from inquiring into the details and complexity of his designs and creations.

Rather than stifling further research, the Bible encourages the search for answers to both scientific and spiritual questions. Ancient King David reflected on the physical makeup of his masterfully formed body. As a result, he said: “In a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware.” (Psalm 139:14) In fact, the Bible presents the Creator as asking the patriarch Job: “Have you intelligently considered the broad spaces of the earth?” (Job 38:18) That certainly does not suggest any stifling of inquiry and investigation. On the contrary, the Master Designer here invited a study of his handiwork. Consider, too, the invitation penned by the prophet Isaiah that directs us to increase our understanding of the One responsible for the creation around us: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things?” Indeed, Isaiah 40:26 then brings up a fact consistent with Einstein’s well-known formula E=mc^2. That fact is that the universe was produced by a source of dynamic energy and power.

The psalmist emphasized the all-encompassing creative activity of Jehovah: “You are the source of all life, and because of your light we see the light.” (Psalm 36:9, Today’s English Version) He is well described as the One “who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them.” (Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24) For good reason, a first-century teacher wrote that God “created all things.”​—Ephesians 3:9.

In addition, God established “the statutes of the heavens,” the physical laws that govern matter and energy, which laws scientists are still studying. (Job 38:33) His design is comprehensive and purposeful, achieving his objective to form the earth to be inhabited by a staggering diversity of living things.

Finally, we need to consider the question of common sense. Commenting in general on the validity of various scientific theories, science writer John Horgan observed: “When the evidence is tentative, we should not be embarrassed to call on common sense for guidance.”

Does it really make sense to claim that life came about simply by chance or through blind forces? Despite the widespread popularity of the theory of evolution, many intelligent people, including scientists, are convinced that there is an intelligent Creator. A science professor notes that the general public “overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed.” Why so? Most people will readily agree with the apostle Paul’s statement: “Every house is constructed by someone.” (Hebrews 3:4) Then Paul continues with the logical conclusion: “He that constructed all things is God.” From the Bible’s viewpoint, it simply does not make sense to acknowledge that a house needs a designer and builder and at the same time claim that a complicated cell accidentally sprang into existence.

The Bible makes an observation regarding those who reject the existence of a Designer and Creator: “The senseless one has said in his heart: ‘There is no Jehovah.’” (Psalm 14:1) Here, the psalmist reproves those who have yet to be convinced. A person might be guided by personal opinion rather than by pure objectivity. On the other hand, the wise, discerning person humbly acknowledges the existence of a Creator.​—Isaiah 45:18.

For many thinking individuals, the evidence that supports a Supreme Designer is unmistakable.

If we see ourselves as the product of design, for what were we designed? What is the purpose of our life? Science alone is unable to give satisfying answers to such questions. These fundamental issues, however, require convincing and satisfying answers. The Bible can be of great benefit in this regard. It identifies Jehovah not only as the Creator but also as a Purposer, one who has sound reasons for what he does. The Scriptures reveal God’s purpose for humankind, offering us a future and a hope.

Still, who is Jehovah? What kind of God is he? You can get to know our Masterful Designer as a real person. You can learn about his name and about his qualities and dealings with mankind. Through the pages of his Word, the Bible, you will come to see why we should not simply admire his superb design but also glorify him as the Designer.​—Psalm 86:12; Revelation 4:11.

edit on 23-6-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2020 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: rom12345

Evolution is a Theory based on good logic.

That may be your opinion, but is evolution really logical though? Coming back to something I mentioned in my previous comment:

originally posted by: whereislogic
In all fairness, fans and adherents of evolutionary philosophies (evolutionists) who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory their “God-of-the-gaps.”

Today, the theory of evolution is said to be a fact by those who promote it. Yet, how logical are the assertions that they so often make? Consider the following.

Silk produced by spiders is one of the strongest materials known. According to New Scientist, “each fibre can stretch by 40 per cent of its length and absorb a hundred times as much energy as steel without breaking.” How is this extraordinary silk made? A viscous liquid, a protein, passes through minute tubes in the spider’s body, and the liquid is changed to a solid thread by a rearrangement of its protein molecules, explains Encyclopædia Britannica.

New Scientist concludes: “The spider has evolved techniques way beyond those of even the most skilful chemist.” Is it conceivable that the spider has evolved a manufacturing technique so complex that man has yet to understand it?

An article in The Wall Street Journal, by Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor, notes that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments: “Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.”

Another example showing the lack of logic in evolutionary thinking has to do with plants. Scientists researching in Morocco have unearthed 150 fossils of archaeopteris, “the closest relative so far discovered of the first seed plants, ancestor of most of today’s trees,” says The Daily Telegraph of London. The newspaper’s science editor declares that this plant “helped to shape the modern world by inventing leaves and branches.” “To invent” is “to devise by thinking.” Is it logical to credit a plant with the ability to think and to invent?

Solomon, one of the wisest of men, advises us to ‘guard our thinking ability,’ to think for ourselves. The need to do so has never been greater.—Proverbs 5:2.

From the earlier link under "the theory of evolution is said to be a fact by those who promote it":

“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders.* These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name implies what many scientists assert​—that these minute changes furnish the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, which they call macroevolution.

You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved​—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—​into the millions of different forms of life on earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution. To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’* [While the word “species” is used frequently in this article, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses the much more inclusive term “kind.” Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.]

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.*

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.


Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered a fact?

Can Mutations Produce New Species?

Many details of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.* Researchers have discovered that mutations​—or random changes—​in the genetic code can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. In 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed: “Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the guidance of natural selection.”

Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of genetic research has revealed.

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced the idea that if natural selection could produce new species of plants from random mutations, then artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do so more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, who was interviewed by Awake! Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 28 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”*

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.” Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”*

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

[Last footnote: Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. Lönnig deduced from this phenomenon the “law of recurrent variation.” In addition, less than 1 percent of plant mutations were chosen for further research, and less than 1 percent of this group were found suitable for commercial use. The results of mutation breeding in animals were even worse than for plants, and the method was abandoned entirely.]




top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join